News:

If you are a member of the original vbulletin forum and wish to post with your former username you'll need to Reset your password If you need help remembering your username or the email address you used to register, please feel free to contact Tony using the CLNEWS Contact Form

Recent posts

Last post by Centre for Research on Globalisation - December 09, 2018, 11:06:12 pm

China?s Ban on Imports of ?Foreign Garbage?: No More of Your Junk

Last year, China announced a ban on imports of ?foreign garbage?. The result? Western stockpiles of used paper and plastic have reached crisis proportions. Adam Liebman explains why we need a less rosy notion of what actually happens to our ...

If one feature of any truly revolutionary moment is the complete failure of conventional categories to describe what's happening around us, then that's a pretty good sign we're living in revolutionary times.

Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained the monumental significance of a new court filing by the U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York highlighting the case that President Donald Trump is guilty of a serious crime.

"For the first time, you have federal prosecutors essentially saying that Donald Trump committed a felony," Katyal said to MSNBC's Ari Melber on "The Beat" Friday night. "And there's three pieces to the claim."

Citing the 11th page of the new sentencing memo in the SDNY case against Michael Cohen, Katyal explained: "Cohen made these campaign finance payments at the direction of Trump. And what we're talking about here are payments made to two women for their silence for having alleged affairs with Trump and were going to go public. And what happened was is that Cohen paid those folks and did so at a time when you're only supposed to give $2,700 to a campaign. And that's for a very important reason: Congress has said we don't want rich people buying elections ? we want transparency in our election process."

Then he moved to the second point, on page 12.

"The prosecutors say, 'The agreement's principal purpose was to suppress this woman's story so as to prevent the story from influencing the election. So they're taking away the Trump defense, which was there in the [John] Edwards case: 'Oh, I was doing it to protect my private life, or something like that,'" he continued. "They're saying, 'No, this was done with a purpose of influencing the election.' That's what the campaign finance laws are all about."

Finally, he noted that the prosecutors argued that the charges are particularly "serious" and strike a "blow to our democracy."

"You put all those things together: The Southern District federal prosecutors are alleging that the president committed a felony," he concluded.

He noted that the document is not itself an indictment, and Trump may have defenses against their claims, but what the prosecutors are saying is clear.

Last post by Centre for Research on Globalisation - December 09, 2018, 11:03:45 am

Canada: Workers Rights and General Motors Plan to Shut Down its Oshawa Plant. Brutal Corporate Strategy. Relocating to China?

General Motor?s plan to end production at its Oshawa plant at the end of 2019 is a callous, cynical act by the U.S.-based multinational auto giant that needs to be challenged. After accepting $13.7-billion bailout offered by the Canadian public ...

The movement known as the gilets jaunes(yellow vests) began as an outcry through social media networks with a mass petition against the increase in tax on petrol and diesel. But it rapidly passed over into a wave of militant protests in towns and cities across the entire country, with the setting up of road-blocks on highways and barricades barring access to fuel storage facilities.

As the protest gained momentum, it became clear that the issues being raising went well beyond petrol prices and taxes. Various lists of demands have been published, covering a wide variety of subjects. The demands reflect the presence of different and to some degree conflicting political tendencies. Taken as a whole, however, they express profound hostility to the existing social order, and a pressing need for the radical transformation of society.

The organisational form of the movement means that it is not possible to put accurate figures on the scale of participation. What is certain, however, is that the people directly or indirectly involved in the protests numbered at least 200,000 to 300,000 on each day. All opinion polls have shown crushing majorities in popular support for their aims, generally ranging from 75% to 84% of the population.

Impressive as these figures are, such massive support would, in itself, indicate a coalition of favourable opinions formed on the basis of very different political inclinations. A poll published on the website of the radio station France Info indicates that 90% of traditional left-wing voters support the gilets jaunes, together with 75% of the right-wing electorate and even 50% of supporters of Macron?s own party.

Contradictory trends have been present, to some degree or other, on all barricades and on street demonstrations of the gilets jaunes, ranging from extreme right-wing nationalism to left-wing, anarchist and revolutionary leanings at the other extreme. Among the articles published by the various left groupings, most of which are not actively involved either in the organised workers? movement or in protests, we can read comparisons between this mass movement and that of May-June 1968, just as we can read that it is essentially ?fascist? or ?poujadiste? (a movement of the 1950s based largely on the rural right-wing), or an expression of the ?enraged petite-bourgeoisie?.

The few reactionary trends which have a marginal existence within the gilets jaunes movement have made some PCF and trade-union militants reticent about expressing any formal support for it, although the CGT, the PCF and the left-wing party led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, La France Insoumise, have all correctly recognised that this is essentially a mass movement driven by desperation and anger over falling living standards and social injustice, and they have therefore given their support, while at the same time dissociating themselves from the minority racist and reactionary trends within it.

Most demonstrators are workers finding it difficult to manage

The confusion over the character of the movement arises from the fact that it is in reality a coalition of various political and social forces, whose strands are as yet still too intertwined to permit a clear description of the movement as a whole. The majority of the gilets jaunesare wage-workers who in spite of long hours in mainly manual jobs are finding it increasingly difficult to find decent housing and properly-paid stable employment to feed, clothe and offer a viable future to their families.

That is the root cause of this movement, without the slightest doubt. And the fact that some groups of employers and right-wing nationalist organisations have tried, here and there, to exploit it for their own reactionary ends does not change this fact.

When building industry employers, caring little for the problems of the workers and angling for tax concessions specifically for themselves, lend machinery and vehicles to serve in barricades and roadblocks, the workers grasp this help with both hands. But talk to them and you will see that they know these are unreliable allies, and that fear of betrayal makes them seek more active support from other workers and students.

This is not anything like what happened in 1968, which was the culmination of a steady rise in organised working class militancy during the first decade of the Gaullist régime, and triggered by massive student protests. The movement of the gilets jaunes is very different. The wage-workers who form the backbone of the movement are drawn from the swelling ranks of the unorganised working poor. They are overwhelmingly new to politics and active protest, and unfamilier with the crystallized ideological and political trends that are ordinarily confined to a thin layer of regular activists. Most of them live in the lesser developed regions of France, where public services ? including public transport ? are scarce.For them, increases in prices hit hard, as do increases in taxes, especially because they see no benefits from taxes in terms of public services and the development of local infrastructure.

The pressure on living standards has stirred up the ordinarily invisible and silent depths of society and brought them to the surface. The ideas of these people have not been fashioned in fancy debates, with articulate speakers and raised hands for questions and contributions, nor by books on history and philosophy. And so, yes, they may appear to some self-proclaimed ?revolutionary theorists? as rather unpolished, given to one-sided views and guilty of occasional racist or sexist remarks.

Movement of gilets jaunes is fluid and unpredictable

But be that as it may, they have become engaged in a bitter struggle, in a revolt of proportions not seen for decades. Their views are not fixed once and for all. They will draw conclusions from the present struggle. The different strands within the movement will unravel in time. As to the nature of their conclusions and relative strength of the different political tendencies taking shape as a result of the present events, that is still an open question.

A proportion of the workers manning the barricades may have voted for the RassemblementNational (formerly the Front National). This does not mean they are consciously racist and reactionary. Many such people could and should be won over to the labour movement. It is possible that the movement of the gilets jaunes will prove to be a prelude to a new upsurge in organised militancy. On the other hand, it is possible that the nationalist and xenophobic trends in society could be strengthened, to the detriment of our cause. There is nothing inevitable about the triumph of socialist ideas. The consciousness of the workers depends upon a struggle of living forces. And struggles can be won or lost. To turn our backs on the gilets jaunes, to write them off as ?petit-bourgeois?, ?fascists? or ?poujadistes?, would be a grave mistake.

An examination of the main demands which have come to the surface in the course of the movement shows that most of them express an attempt to reduce the precariousness of working class life, to improve the conditions and the net income of workers and to attack the privileges and power of the ruling elites.

Demands include the call for a general reduction of taxes ? not just on petroleum products ? and an increase in pensions, an increase in the minimum wage, real quality of pay for men and women, an increase in housing benefits and financial help for students. The demand for an end to special pension schemes (such as the one railway workers are trying to defend) is there, but this is followed by the demand for the same method of calculation for all pensions, all of which should be higher. They call for the inclusion of disabled people in all aspects of social life and for an access to culture for all.

The demands of the gilets jaunes

One of the most important parts of the list of demands handed to the government was about the organisation of government. They call for a reduction of the wages paid to members of the government, for the abolition of privileges such as the payment for stipends to ministers even when they are no longer in office, for an end to fake jobs created for friends and relatives, and insist on the strict control of the personal expenses for politicians. They also demand that members of parliament actually attend parliamentary sessions.

Further demands include the convocation of a citizens? assembly, more frequent consultation of the people by referendum, the abolition of the Senate, and the promulgation of laws by the people. Significantly, there are demands for the protection of the environment, giving the lie to the propaganda of the government claiming that the revolt is against ecological concerns.

It is true that one of the lists of demands published in the press says that refugees who have been denied asylum should be sent back to the country they came from, and that other ideas put forward are of a racist and nationalistic character. But overall, it is clear that this generalplatform, notwithstanding some isolated demands that socialists would oppose, has nothing to do with ?fascism? and does not represent a reactionary movement.

Macron was elected by default. The electoral base of his own party was something like 25% of active voters. He only won because the second round of the presidential election was a choice between him and Marine Le Pen. Since that time, what little support there was for his policies has largely collapsed.

Macron has attacked workers? rights and pensions

Macron puts himself forward as the man who will balk at nothing in pushing through his program of counter-reforms in the interests of big business. He rode roughshod over the national leaders of the trade union organisations. Nothing was to be negotiated. He would only consult with them, to tellthem what was going to be done to reduce workers? rights. He attacked railway workers? conditions, cut pensions, reduce taxes for the rich and ? as the petrol tax shows ? increase the tax burden on the poor. Hospitals and schools and local authorities are starved of resources. More than 5 million are out of work. His arrogance and brazen contempt for the ordinary people has been amply demonstrated on many occasions, such as when he told a young unemployed man that he only had to ?cross the street? to find a job if he really wanted one.

The attempt to justify the fuel tax increases on ecological grounds is completely spurious. The idea is that if petrol is more expensive, more people will leave their car at home and take public transport. But in many areas, no regular or reliable public transport is available. People have no alternative to cars. Also, many formally self-employed workers use their vehicles as part of their work.

The gilets jaunes took Macron and his government completely by surprise. His ministers have branded the movement as the work of the extreme-right. But this is a ploy intended to drive a wedge between the left and militant unions such as the CGT (trade union federation), on the one hand, and the demonstrators on the other.

It is possible that the government could capitulate and withdraw the tax (since this writing Macron has capitulated and withdrawn the fuel tax.) . But a great deal is at stake for them. Backing down would encourage large-scale protest movements on other issues. So far, Macron is trying to weather the storm in the hope that it will blow over before too long. He also hopes the violent behaviour of some elements among the gilets jaunes, but mainly of organised groups outside of the movement, will erode popular support. One of the difficulties he has is that this movement has no recognised leaders. The individuals who have been invited to discuss with the government have all emphasised the fact that they have no mandate and no authority to speak or decide anything on behalf of the movement as a whole.

Unbearable social consequences of capitalism

Whatever the outcome of the present struggle, the events of these last few weeks are a symptom of the unbearable social and economic consequences of modern capitalism, which can only continue at the expense of the living standards, the rights and prospects of a growing proportion of society, and by the steady erosion and destruction of the social conquests of organised labour. This cannot go on forever without provoking a major social upheaval at some point, on a much greater scale than we are seeing at the present time.

All over Europe, the social consequences of austerity are driving millions of people towards nationalist and reactionary demagogues. This has also been the case in France. Workers have seen right and left governments come and go, applying policies that are very similar on all fundamental questions, and presiding over a general decline in the living conditions of the mass of the people.

They have also seen that trade-unionism, while it may have weakened the impact of some of the blows directed against them, has not prevented those blows and has delivered no blows in return. Workers are desperate and impatient for change and for concrete results. This explains the insurrectionary mood of many on the barricades and the demonstrations of these last few weeks. The workers? movement must find a way to channel and organise this yearning for change, otherwise the nationalists will make considerable gains in the future.

Communist Party seriously weakened

The nationalist right-wing is taking advantage of the political and organisational weaknesses of the workers? organisations, which are hampered by a narrow reformist outlook. Changes in the Communist Party (PCF) spearheaded by the party leadership in the 1990s, led to a dilution of the party program and acceptance of pro-capitalist policies, to the point of approving and even directly organising a number of major privatisations under the Jospin government of 1997-2002. This seriously weakened the position of the Party within the most conscious and militant section of the working class and, by extension, within the class as a whole.

Now, at last, there is pressure within the ranks of the PCF to move back in the direction of presenting an alternative to capitalism. But the weakened organisational base of the Party ? with just 50,000 paid up members ? has become a major obstacle to be overcome before the PCF can appear as a strong and effective militant organisation in the eyes of the mass of the working people.

It cannot be ruled out that Mélenchon at the head of La France Insoumise could win the next presidential election. It is too early to say and the situation in the country is too volatile, to speculate about what will happen three years from now. Even if Mélenchon did win, he would rapidly abandon the most progressive elements of his program, which further underlines the imperative need for an alternative political force to the left of La France Insoumise. In spite of all the difficulties ? and there are many ? no other organised forces in French society are better placed to fulfill this role than the PCF and the CGT.

Postscript: Since this article was posted, the government of Macron has indeed folded as the article suggested he might. This is the first time in his 18-month presidency that Macron has backed down in the face of opposition to any of his policies and it is not unconnected to the fact that his personal poll ratings are at a record low of only 26 per cent. Macron and his Prime Minister, Edouard Philippe, have postponed the fuel tax increases, but only for six months, no doubt in an attempt to defuse the movement of the gilets jaunes and to buy time to prepare for protests at a later date.

Whether the climbdown is enough to stop the protests remains to be seen. According to the French think-tank, Institut des Politiques Publiques, tax and benefit changes by Philippe/Macron will leave the bottom fifth of the population worse off, with huge gains for the top 1 per cent.

A prominent member of the gilets jaunes, told the Financial Times, ?The French want more than crumbs. They want the whole baguette?. (December 5)

Another analyst, Nicolas Bouzou, thought that the Macron climb-down would not be enough. ?We have a real problem with living standards?, he said, ?and there is real hatred for political elites and authorities. The fuel tax increases were nothing more than a trigger.? John Pickard, editor, Left Horizons UK

The latest IPCC report does not mince words about the state of our planet: we must act now to achieve global change at a scale that has ?no documented historical precedent? in order to avoid the climate catastrophe that would result from a 2 degree C rise in average global temperature. Climate change already disproportionately affects the world?s most vulnerable people including poor rural communities that depend on the land for their livelihoods and coastal communities throughout the tropics.

This Russian oligarch reportedly bragged of his U.S. influence after Trump's election ? and he has a direct tie to Michael Cohen

The sprawling connections between Trump and Russia never end.

Viktor Vekselberg is among the Russian oligarchs that Michael Cohen came into contact with during his years as President Donald Trump?s personal attorney. The 61-year-old Ukraine-born Vekselberg has had business and political contacts in the U.S. for decades?and after the 2016 presidential election, reportedly bragged about his ties to the Trump Organization.

?Soon,? Bloomberg News reports in a new article, ?Trump would be in the White House, and Vekselberg would be privately boasting of having the pull needed to help achieve the sanctions relief the Kremlin was craving.?

But sanctions relief, according to Bloomberg, is the last thing Vekselberg experienced after Trump was sworn in as president?and his U.S. activities have cost him billions of dollars in the Trump era.

Bloomberg quotes former Pentagon official Michael Carpenter as saying that Vekselberg ?was deeply implicated in efforts to influence leaders and politicians here in the U.S.? And his interactions with American politicians and businesspeople caught the attention of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

After being questioned by Mueller?s team in March 2018 as part of the Russiagate probe, Vekselberg was hit with stiff sanctions?and according to Bloomberg, Vekselberg has since ?lost about $3 billion of his-now $13.4 billion fortune, mainly due to declines in the market values of his minority stakes? in Swiss companies and the aluminum company RUSAL (for which fellow oligarch Oleg Deripaska served as president).

Vekselberg?s financial woes, Bloomberg reports, also include an ?estimated $2 billion or more of stocks and cash that have been frozen or tied up in banks as a result of the U.S. penalties.?

Before being banned from the U.S., Vekselberg had a green card and spent a lot of time pursuing American businesspeople and politicians?both Democrat and Republican. The politicians Vekselberg reached out to, according to Bloomberg, ranged from former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

When Mueller?s team questioned Vekselberg in March, Bloomberg reports, they wanted to know all about his connection to Michael Cohen?including hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of payments his company?s United States affiliate made to the former Trump attorney.

Cohen is awaiting sentencing for federal crimes that he has confessed to. On August 22, Cohen pled guilty to a total of eight crimes ranging from bank fraud and tax fraud to campaign finance violations. And recently, Cohen also pled guilty to lying to Congress about Trump?s real estate projects in Moscow. Cohen is now cooperating fully in Mueller?s probe.

Vekselberg, who was born in Ukraine in 1957, is the owner of the Russian conglomerate Renova Group?and even with the sanctions, he remains one of the richest people in Russia.

As UK Prime Minister Theresa May has just five days to try to rally support for her Brexit deal, a Tory MP has suggested using the possibility of food shortages to Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit to ...